Monday, September 08, 2008

Progress

Sunday, I chatted with a couple (mid-50s) from Cornwall. They are two months into a "gap year"--taken once their youngest reached 18--devoted to sailing the Med. They saw what I'm reading, and asked "Don't you think the West is declining and falling too?"

Five minutes later, I stopped arguing. But, I was struck, again, by how different conservatives are from the stereotype. My brand of conservatism is so optimistic, and so trusting of the polis and the law of large numbers (contra this), that I never understood why Candide was satire. This is the best of all possible worlds--or, if it's not, that's because it's getting better.

Hence my opposition to Obama. Even were it better defined, why is "change" good? I'm a conservative, for God's sake! While there's much I would do differently, it's a matter of emphasis--markets, individuality--not direction. Still, the best aspect of Obama is the favorable frisson regarding a first-generation American running for President. That's progress too.

September 11th was a curveball, and no one on the Washington Nationals can hit breaking stuff. But once America resolved to take the offense against terrorism, we resumed the right vector. I know about Will and Whittle--but there must be many who, like me, are optimistic about the present and future.

We are the true progressives.

12 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

> there must be many who, like me, are optimistic about the present and future.

Cautious optimism. We can screw up, most certainly given the wonderous Germanic System of Indoctrin-- Sorry: "Education" -- we've saddled ourselves with. I think we have a much greater risk, nowadays, of turning fascist than we did sixty years ago.

But as long as they don't succeed in outlawing guns for another 20-odd years, we'll be A-OK. After that, I don't think it will be technologically possible.

Geoffrey Britain said...

"there must be many who, like me, are optimistic about the present and future."

Far, far more than any of us can really know I suspect.

Carl said...

I'm counting: that's five.

OBloodyHell said...

> how different conservatives are from the stereotype.

The stereotype is created by the libtards, Carl. It also says we're racist and sexist, too.

I've already commented on both of those notions.

The stereotype is flat out wrong for most conservatives in just about every way. It has about as much to do with reality as almost anything else the libtards believe. Zero.

If you go to any of the Psych pro's websites -- AVI, Dr. Sanity, Neo-Neocon, and Sigmund/Carl/Alfred, to name four (esp. Dr. Sanity), you find a lot about the liberal tendency for projection and, fitting this into the "conservative stereotype" we find it vested with lots of the negative qualities of liberals, not conservatives.

Racism, sexism, intolerance, selfishness, narcissism, pessimism, etc., are all liberal qualities, nowadays. They've projected them into the conservative stereotype, but that does not make them conservative qualities.

Carl said...

OBH:

Agreed. But, I never seem to shake liberals of the stereotype.

OBloodyHell said...

> Agreed. But, I never seem to shake liberals of the stereotype.

That's because you probably are attempting to use reason. "Reason, whut dat?" is how liberals respond. And even if the technique WERE to work, the stereotype is a core part of those Officially Accepted Liberal Positions I've commented in other threads on. They're all protected by the Midnight Reset Button.

The only possible approach is to become their psychologist and lead them to the answer for themselves. I sorta doubt you want to take the time for that for most, if not all, of them.

And, as always, they really, really, really have to WANT to change... (snicker).

And you see that as part of the model -- all change is external, not internal. And Obama will Lead Them To It.

=======================

P.S., in regard to your search for positivists, you might find this of interest:
http://www.peaktrader.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18894

Anonymous said...

Let us not forget the huge ($407 billion - this Bush) deficits run up by those "conservatives." Guess you'll have to change the definition of "conservative," if you want to call yourself a "conservative." Since truth isn't a top priority with conservatives, that should be no problem.

Geoffrey Britain said...

"Let us not forget the huge ($407 billion - this Bush) deficits run up by those "conservatives." Since truth isn't a top priority with conservatives, that should be no problem."

It's not the truth we have a problem with, its in our necessary response to your distortions of the truth wherein the problem lies.

Distorsions like you're laying blame for that $407 billion solely upon Bush and the republicans. They certainly deserve censure for their part, and conservatives have been complaining for years about it.

But so do the democrats who believe in unlimited spending ( we can always print up more $) and who have controlled Congress (who controls the spending) for the last 2+ years. Democrats have also consistently used their financial support for the war as leverage to keep republicans from bringing fiscal discipline to congress. Yet you mention this part of the truth, NOT AT ALL.

Someone once said that smart politicians never lie, they just don't acknowledge the WHOLE truth. And the part they DO cite supports their agenda...that is what you are doing.

Conservative support for McCain/Palin conclusively demonstrates that conservatives are AGAINST deficits and profligate spending. McCain has consistently railed AGAINST earmarks and Palin in less than 2 years has reduced spending by half a billion.

On the other hand, Obama in but 3 years has requested almost a billion in earmarks for his state.

If you want to make an argument based in fact, fine we welcome it but its disingenuous to leave out most of the facts.

Lame-R said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, that's a $500 billion deficit Republicans will be leaving for the Democrats to deal with starting in 2009. Yeah, let's stick to the facts. What does "conservative" mean to you? In the olden days it meant fiscally responsible.

Anonymous said...

You are right. It's not just the Bush morons that are the cause of the current meltdown in the marketplace, Ronald Reagan deserves some of the credit.

Geoffrey Britain said...

The dems are responsible for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle and it's factually documented.

OBW, please explain how 'morons' have beaten you 7 out of the last 10 elections?